[Rejected] Rules

[All Ts]

I’m on my phone so if this post isn’t up to snuff or someone wants to move it somewhere you can do that. I’ve read a little about this situation that happened recently, and without really derailing this thread from the get-go I wanted to open with this statement so that it can’t be mistaken. There are a lot of people who passively hang around, staff or not, who probably should be banned….
 

However:

The rules aren’t lacking in all scenarios and while threads like the one BoM made, or even the more directed warnings from Caution today aren't without provocation, I need to also say this.. I don’t think going beyond the rules and creating these temporary announcements where you’re going to “handle” this mysterious, ever-changing  group of “trouble makers” differently is ever a good way to handle it. I’ve seen it happen a dozen or more times. I don’t see any reason why people can’t be treated normally and be issued the same warnings anyone else would be. If someone does something so egregious then like anyone else it would make sense to just  nuke them completely. 

 

Temporary extensions of the rules via abrasive threads or people making vast statements like SG is in martial law is in my opinion, a bad idea and I hope it stops happening. If the rules are lacking somehow they can be extended. When someone who’s removing my posts, telling me my opinion doesn’t matter, and locking my threads posts about how trouble makers are gonna be dealt with harshly it has a side effect of making me feel like the wrong kind of opinion has a permanent ban on the other end of it. 

[Kieran]

Quote

In response to a growing sense of need to remove certain community members who provide nothing positive and are here only to troll and wreak havoc we have decided to establish a new rule. This is in response to comments that have been made to us regarding how certain situations are handled as well as conversations that were had at the community meeting. In times past BDs were far less lenient to those who simply wasted a lot of time and harassed staff and members alike in ways that skirted around the rules. This, ironically, led to less conflict and less hostility among those not removed from the community because they could co-exist here peacefully without the annoyance or excessive negativity.

 

New Rule: Do not be continuously disruptive to the community via consistent trolling, breaking rules, or speaking badly about other members/staff/the community.

 

This rule is an absolute nightmare, shame on whoever wrote it and whoever thought it was a good idea. This rule is vague, useless, and just opens plenty of opportunities for it to be exploited.

 

What the hell does "being disruptive" to the community mean... that's incredibly vague and not helpful at all. What undesirable behavior that is considered trolling isn't already covered by the rules? Not being allowed to speaking badly about others? You mean, don't be disrespectful... already covered by the rules? I mean, the rule literally says not to the break rules, like come on, did anyone proof read this?

 

In the announcement thread, BoM even mentioned Polarzz as the "prime example" of a disruptive member, I guess as a way to show why this rule was needed. Yet all of the listed "disruptive behaviors", such as making homophobic remarks and harassing others, were already prohibited by the rules. 

 

The whole mass banning yesterday didn't help clarify anything at all. I mean, in Caution's response yesterday he didn't explain how any of those guys were actually being disruptive yesterday. Nothing about the gif Scrolls posted, nothing about anything Creten said, nothing. He just said general stuff like "you guys were violating THIS rule" or "you guys are at this level about 80% of the time", how it wasn't "quite harassment" (so, they didn't break the rules?), and then talking about their previous "disruptive behaviors" (harassment, disrespect, spam pinging, leaking info, etc.) which are once again already prohibited by the rules. 

 

To me, this rule seems intentionally vague as a way for higher-ups to remove people they don't like out of the community without real explanation or reason. An opportunity for BDs and others to overreach and punish behavior that isn't covered by the rules. There's no protocols to enforce this rule or anything... BDs can just slap a "being disruptive" label on you, cite that thread, and you're gone.

 

I'm not trying to defend the behavior of that group or others. They've broken actual rules, as I said previously. Maybe they deserved to be banned for their previous infractions. But you guys literally make the rules, so explicitly list the behaviors you don't want in your own community and enforce them. Make amendments to the list if you missed shit. Deal repeat offenders harsher punishments. This grey area "rule" littered with vague terminology makes no sense and will probably continue to be abused like it was yesterday.

 

[Cept For Her]

Just want to throw in another note thats not directly related to this "rule", although I will state that I laughed at it the second it was posted because it was literally just a rule saying to not break the rules lol. 

 

Anyway,

The point I want to bring up, which has actually been an ongoing problem for the duration of my time at SG, is the communication of these global warnings, and posts like caution made that are meant to apply to every single person in the community. If I'm just some random regular browsing the forums, I'm not going to be look at some random dudes ban appeal, so I'm going to miss that big warning since there was no official thread or announcement made about it. I've had this occur in the past, where some sort of warning or position was given in a ban appeal, and a lot of people missed it or skipped over it, because that thread should not have applied to them. 

TLDR: Dont make community wide warnings/clarifications in random threads, make an official post stating the community's position on the matter. If its a reply to a ban appeal, it should only apply to the person appealing. If you want to warn a specific group about one rule theyre close to getting banned for, you have DMs to handle that in. 

[Gumline]

Based @Kieran, well spoken +rep. I also agree with @Cept For Her:

4 hours ago, Cept For Her said:

Dont make community wide warnings/clarifications in random threads

SG doesn't need new rules. If the Board or whoever does decide on adding new rules, for every new rule, 2 should be removed. Less rules, more server activity, better steam-gamers. SG has more daily active forum users than server users, this is a major problem. More risks need to be taken to reverse course and foster what really matters. A great escape for individuals to come and game.

[The Real Slim Jim]

 

On 9/4/2022 at 3:58 AM, All Ts said:

making me feel like the wrong kind of opinion has a permanent ban on the other end of it. 

Don't worry I have the worst opinions and I'm still around.

 

I'm reading this before the subject of this post so ill go read that and catch up but idk maybe try giving those members some private notice before hand detailing what needs to stop and how they are skirting rules?

[jazzy]

Side note: I agree with Slim Jim, but we also don't know what has already been said privately to them prior to any bans being handed.

 

I don't know the situation that arose the other day completely, so this is not directed at anyone caught by the rule prior. I'm not here to disparage anything that has unfolded as a result, including the admins or the players.

 

Honestly most places I've been around have a set of obvious rules like don't say X, don't say Y, don't do Z, blah. But many places have a pretty big golden rule, "Don't be a dick"

It's an incredibly vague rule that has a lot of discretion, but at the end of the day an internet community is a bit like a wild west town. You're not really bound by true law, you're just run out of the town when you're annoying enough.

 

At least back in my day, and it seems true today, is you get a LOT of discretion on how you were handled by admins when you broke a rule. But at the end of the day, annoy enough people and lose enough backing of enough people and you are going to get scorched. Back in the day everyone RDMed/prop dmed someone as a joke, even admins. As long as you weren't just annihilating the fun, it wasn't a huge deal.

 

So basically the reality is once enough people were annoyed with you, they looked for pretty much any basic reason to get you out. The 3 strike rule was not always enforced and many perms (including my older one, before my final one) had been overruled as too harsh, blah blah blah.

 

I think this new rule just settles this entire dilemma. Instead of waiting for you to fuck up and break an obvious rule, how about just skip to the part where they ban you.

 

I'm not really against it. Speaking as a prior piece of shit, it took a nice long perm to get me to chill the hell out, and it was really a long time coming far before I was actually permed.

 

There needs to be rationale behind banning someone, but at the end of the day I think the rigid guidelines of the rules set forth allowed little deviance, even when there's a need to create exceptions. This might be too meta but- communities are built on social interactions. What's the point in housing people who continue to alienate, frustrate, bully, and irritate the rest of the community? I'm not speaking directly about the instance that happened the other day because I don't know the full scope of it, but just my 2 cents.